explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2974: Storage Tanks

2024-08-20T05:40:03Z

108.162.221.103: Hydrostatic paradox

The symmetry of the truss intrigues me. Struts that are diagonal across the faces of the cuboids is normal, but is it a real thing to also use the body diagonal? Never seen that IRL, not sure if it makes sense from the statics. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.247.82|172.70.247.82]] 22:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty menial job for the "head of security". I think he would delegate this to a security guard. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The explanation mentions there might be more complex calculus examples where the shape might not be a cylinder. I think some further explanation could be added that this does not change the pressure (hydrostatic paradox) but indeed change the rate of emptying the object. If differing cross sections are relevant at all. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.103|108.162.221.103]] 05:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1735: Fashion Police and Grammar Police

2016-09-19T16:54:36Z

108.162.221.103:

I added a basic explanation to this comic. I also changed the incomplete to say "Needs more on the explanation". Maybe you guys can help connect the dots and extend the explanation? --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 14:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that he uses literally wrong, just to anger the grammar police he's mocking, it's a nice touch.[[User:Trives|Trives]] ([[User talk:Trives|talk]]) 14:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

In my eyes the 2 groups are not standing together in this comic. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
: Yeah I'd have said they were just being presented graphically, the intention isn't to display them as protesting alongside each other. [[User:Xseo|Xseo]] ([[User talk:Xseo|talk]]) 15:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there an extra joke in the Title Text, "* Mad about jorts"? If it's something which both Grammar Police and Fashion Police would find distasteful, it would add an extra layer to the assertion that they are the same people.

Incidentally, I find it ironic and probably unintentional that the Title Text demonstrates the importance of grammar and undermines Randall's own assertions that Grammar Police are superfluous and annoying. Is he saying that he really likes jorts, or is he saying that he is really angered by them? If only there was some formal ruleset which allowed meaning to be more effectively conveyed, rather than being a system of glorious chaos... https://xkcd.com/1576/

I think the comment above is inaccurate: "Title Text demonstrates the importance of grammar and undermines Randall's own assertions that Grammar Police are superfluous and annoying". The "*" represents a bullet point so it is clear that "* Mad about jorts" is an additional bullet point that both groups would find offensive. The irony now is that I'm not familiar with how to structure my wiki comments. ~~dizzydan~~

Talk:1735: Fashion Police and Grammar Police

2016-09-19T16:53:13Z

108.162.221.103:

I added a basic explanation to this comic. I also changed the incomplete to say "Needs more on the explanation". Maybe you guys can help connect the dots and extend the explanation? --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 14:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that he uses literally wrong, just to anger the grammar police he's mocking, it's a nice touch.[[User:Trives|Trives]] ([[User talk:Trives|talk]]) 14:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

In my eyes the 2 groups are not standing together in this comic. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
: Yeah I'd have said they were just being presented graphically, the intention isn't to display them as protesting alongside each other. [[User:Xseo|Xseo]] ([[User talk:Xseo|talk]]) 15:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there an extra joke in the Title Text, "* Mad about jorts"? If it's something which both Grammar Police and Fashion Police would find distasteful, it would add an extra layer to the assertion that they are the same people.

Incidentally, I find it ironic and probably unintentional that the Title Text demonstrates the importance of grammar and undermines Randall's own assertions that Grammar Police are superfluous and annoying. Is he saying that he really likes jorts, or is he saying that he is really angered by them? If only there was some formal ruleset which allowed meaning to be more effectively conveyed, rather than being a system of glorious chaos... https://xkcd.com/1576/

"Title Text demonstrates the importance of grammar and undermines Randall's own assertions that Grammar Police are superfluous and annoying". I think this is inaccurate. The "*" represents a bullet point so it is clear that "* Mad about jorts" is an additional bullet point that both groups would find offensive. The irony now is that I'm not familiar with how to structure my wiki comments. ~~dizzydan~~

Talk:1544: Margaret

2015-07-01T16:57:46Z

108.162.221.103:

I love how 'God' is referred to as an 'it' instead of the usual anthropomorphism. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.52|108.162.219.52]] 00:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)BK201
:That may be appropriate when god is uncapitalized, but it is ill-fitting for "God". Capitalized God is never genderless in regular speech or composition, so this sounds either like non-native writing (which is fine if it is later corrected) or someone making a statement (which is inappropriate unless the comic makes the same statement). [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.25|173.245.50.25]] 20:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
::Or thirdly i wrote "it" because this comic lacks any religious specificity or theological discussion, so it was left generic. This page does not speak to a specific religions interpretation of God, I highly doubt all monotheistic religions, historic and present, refer to God as male. If it is a Christian God it does not speak to the aspect, as the holy spirit is female in the original text. Yes if this was a theological discussion you might be right to impose a gender, but this comic that does not delve into any theological issues. As to "making a point" you are the one making a point, as to your own correctness, the nature of this God, and making false assumptions about the English language. As someone who is a native speaker I know that "it" can be used as impersonal or personal and is SUPPOSED to be used when the gender is unknown.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.155|108.162.238.155]] 21:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Historically, "he" was used for unknown gender. Today, it's "he or she". I don't know your gender, but I can't correctly call you "it". I also don't know the sex of South Africa's head of state, and I won't look that up until after posting this. Can I call him or her "it" because I am uncertain? For a generic god, lower-case god is fine. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
::::WRONG the use of it only as an impersonal pronoun is modern, he was never generic, and is not today http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/pronouns-personal-i-me-you-him-it-they-etc http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/it . Nextime someone challanges your preconseptions, check before calling them out. 00:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::"It" is not being using impersonally in this case. "Impersonal" doesn't mean "no gender", it means "no agent". For example, "it is raining", "it is snowing", "it is windy", and so on. Using it as a pronoun proper is by definition not impersonal. So, definitions that call "it" impersonal have nothing to do with this. If "he" was never generic, explain all of the quotes (many of them hundreds of years old) that begin with "he who...". Also, note that the possessive form of "it" was actually usually rendered as "his" until the word "its" came into common parlance, another clue of the historical use of the gender as default. Other languages that haven't lost their gender system, like Spanish, still use masculine as default.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.25|173.245.50.25]] 05:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::Here's a good example of "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun, from 1611: "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given." I could produce more, but the point is simply to dispel the assertion that "he" was never generic. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.25|173.245.50.25]] 05:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

::::: Not generic, just assumed that the audience is male :) also from the definition that no one could read "person or animal whose sex is unknown or disregarded "[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.155|108.162.238.155]] 16:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::I disagree. "Whosoever" is pretty generic, and its gender is independent of the audience. That definition is for uses like "who is it?", which are used in questions (like that example) and indirect questions (like "I don't know who it is"). Using that for this case reminds me of those "DRIVERS SHOCKED BY NEW RULE IN [STATE]" ads. I looked at one of them out of curiosity (clicking on it cost them money, after all), and looked at the disclaimer at the bottom. It specifically justified the use of "rule" in the advertisement by citing a dictionary entry like this one from Webster: "a piece of advice about the best way to do something". But, we all know that even though the dictionary says that, it makes no sense to apply that definition to "NEW RULE IN CALIFORNIA!" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.103|108.162.221.103]] 16:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

:::I don't mean to pick a fight, really. I just feel that using "it" to refer to a capitalized God is extremely unusual. So much so that both I and the initial commenter immediately noticed and commented on it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 23:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

;Mister God, This Is Anna
I though it was Anna, not Margaret... but it turns out that {{w|Mister God, This Is Anna}} is a different book... --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 13:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;Judy Blume
The text in the comic comprises titles of Judy Blume's novels:
* Otherwise Known as Sheila the Great
* Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret.
* Then Again, Maybe I Won't
* The Pain and the Great One

;the the
Why the double "the the" in the Title text?{{unsigned ip|
Maybe it's supposed to be "thee"? {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.115}}
: Look out! It's an {{w|anacoluthon}}! [[User:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|ImVeryAngryItsNotButter]] ([[User talk:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|talk]]) 15:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
: Maybe it's a typo? ;) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.116|173.245.51.116]] 12:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
::Maybe it's supposed to be 'the The Great One' [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.122|108.162.219.122]] 14:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;Another take on a rarely-used joke

I've seen this threat/insult God line used before, but rarely, and never in this manner.

In one episode of the sitcom One Foot In The Grave, the grumpy old man protagonist is incapacitated. Upon waking up in hospital he finds a bearded patient in a white gown looking down upon him, and for a few seconds believes himself to be dead. He speaks three lines: 'Oh, it's you.' Then in a much angrier tone 'I've been waiting to see you for a very long time.' He then proceeds to grab the patient around the neck and attempt to throttle him while screaming in anger about every misfortune and annoyance in life.

One episode of The Outer Limits features a very old man who has spent his entire life fighting to survive - with such determination and success that he almost overturns the supernatural structure of nature, which should prohibit immortality. At episode's end he finally loses, having resorted to every trick fair and foul in his quest to live another day. In the final shot a mysterious force approaches to collect his soul - and the ghost of the man is seen, readying himself for a fight as he speaks the final line at the oncoming form: "I'm ready for you. I hope you're ready for me."

The final (non-revival) episode of Red Dwarf ends with Death himself coming to collect the supreme coward Rimmer, incarnate as the traditional black-robed figure with a scythe. Rimmer knees him in the groin mid-sentence and flees.

[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.185|141.101.98.185]] 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;hot
Margaret is kinda hot.
Is it normal to be sexually attracted to an xkcd character ? {{unsigned ip|173.245.49.29}}

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 14:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC) See also title text of comic [[1354: Heartbleed Explanation]]

;transformers
This is almost an exact quote from the end of transformers age of extinction... Optimus prime rhetorically asks his makers of they are scared, then follows with you should be because I'm coming for you {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.173}}

;stirring the pot
Ooh, ooh, let's say that the "second Megan" in [[1496: Art Project]] was this [[Margaret]] girl! I'm sure everyone can agree to that!!! [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 15:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
:No way. This [[Margaret]] has already been used once before as mentioned, and she has curly hair. The "other" Megan has straight hair like Megan!--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;Cut it out
Cut out the excessive use of topic headlines.
On point, the description correlating to an action movie trailer is hard to read, lacks focus, and includes a synopsis of the comic. The synopsis should not remain as that's what the transcript is for. Also, the part describing the book titles should say that it was likely inspiration for the Title Text, not the comic. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.154|173.245.48.154]] 17:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;Margaret Downy Reference?

Could it be a reference to Margaret Downey, former President of Atheist Alliance International? (Would explain the "or not" in the mouseover text and the wry rephrasing of a traditional prayer.)
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.165|108.162.237.165]] 18:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
:No, it is obviously to the character from the books--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;Margaret - throwaway name?
I've noticed quite a few similarities between Margaret and "Danish" - i.e. the thick hair, the sadistic attitude... They the same person, or was Margaret just a throwaway name used for the purposes of satirizing Blume's novels? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.22|141.101.99.22]] 17:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
:No way should this be Danish. This [[Margaret]] has already been used once before as mentioned, and she has curly hair. [[Danish]] has long but straight hair, like Megan but longer!--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;Judy Blume is a current topic
Judy Blume, author of "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret" just this month put out a new novel ("In The Unlikely Event"). I suppose a month's lead time is stretching a bit, but an episode of Commonwealth Forum from the 7th of this month just aired on KQED. It featured Judy Blume and Molly Ringwald talking about Judy's novels, new and otherwise. It seems slightly too coincidental to be coincidence, but that might just be me. Is this worth mentioning? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.56.179|162.158.56.179]] 03:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

;Batman v. Superman
So was I totally off thinking this may have had something to do with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice teaser trailer where graffiti "False God" on a statute of Superman. Batman stares at Superman, saying: "Tell me, do you bleed? You will." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.29|108.162.221.29]] 04:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1544: Margaret

2015-07-01T16:54:35Z

108.162.221.103:

I love how 'God' is referred to as an 'it' instead of the usual anthropomorphism. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.52|108.162.219.52]] 00:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)BK201
:That may be appropriate when god is uncapitalized, but it is ill-fitting for "God". Capitalized God is never genderless in regular speech or composition, so this sounds either like non-native writing (which is fine if it is later corrected) or someone making a statement (which is inappropriate unless the comic makes the same statement). [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.25|173.245.50.25]] 20:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
::Or thirdly i wrote "it" because this comic lacks any religious specificity or theological discussion, so it was left generic. This page does not speak to a specific religions interpretation of God, I highly doubt all monotheistic religions, historic and present, refer to God as male. If it is a Christian God it does not speak to the aspect, as the holy spirit is female in the original text. Yes if this was a theological discussion you might be right to impose a gender, but this comic that does not delve into any theological issues. As to "making a point" you are the one making a point, as to your own correctness, the nature of this God, and making false assumptions about the English language. As someone who is a native speaker I know that "it" can be used as impersonal or personal and is SUPPOSED to be used when the gender is unknown.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.155|108.162.238.155]] 21:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Historically, "he" was used for unknown gender. Today, it's "he or she". I don't know your gender, but I can't correctly call you "it". I also don't know the sex of South Africa's head of state, and I won't look that up until after posting this. Can I call him or her "it" because I am uncertain? For a generic god, lower-case god is fine. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
::::WRONG the use of it only as an impersonal pronoun is modern, he was never generic, and is not today http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/pronouns-personal-i-me-you-him-it-they-etc http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/it . Nextime someone challanges your preconseptions, check before calling them out. 00:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::"It" is not being using impersonally in this case. "Impersonal" doesn't mean "no gender", it means "no agent". For example, "it is raining", "it is snowing", "it is windy", and so on. Using it as a pronoun proper is by definition not impersonal. So, definitions that call "it" impersonal have nothing to do with this. If "he" was never generic, explain all of the quotes (many of them hundreds of years old) that begin with "he who...". Also, note that the possessive form of "it" was actually usually rendered as "his" until the word "its" came into common parlance, another clue of the historical use of the gender as default. Other languages that haven't lost their gender system, like Spanish, still use masculine as default.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.25|173.245.50.25]] 05:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::Here's a good example of "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun, from 1611: "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given." I could produce more, but the point is simply to dispel the assertion that "he" was never generic. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.25|173.245.50.25]] 05:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

::::: Not generic, just assumed that the audience is male :) also from the definition that no one could read "person or animal whose sex is unknown or disregarded "[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.155|108.162.238.155]] 16:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::I disagree. "Whosoever" is pretty generic. That definition is for uses like "who is it?", which are used in questions (like that example) and indirect questions (like "I don't know who it is"). Using that for this case reminds me of those "DRIVERS SHOCKED BY NEW RULE IN [STATE]" ads. I looked at one of them out of curiosity (clicking on it cost them money, after all), and looked at the disclaimer at the bottom. It specifically justified the use of "rule" in the advertisement by citing a dictionary entry like this one from Webster: "a piece of advice about the best way to do something". But, we all know that even though the dictionary says that, it makes no sense to apply that definition to "NEW RULE IN CALIFORNIA!" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.103|108.162.221.103]] 16:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

:::I don't mean to pick a fight, really. I just feel that using "it" to refer to a capitalized God is extremely unusual. So much so that both I and the initial commenter immediately noticed and commented on it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 23:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

;Mister God, This Is Anna
I though it was Anna, not Margaret... but it turns out that {{w|Mister God, This Is Anna}} is a different book... --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 13:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;Judy Blume
The text in the comic comprises titles of Judy Blume's novels:
* Otherwise Known as Sheila the Great
* Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret.
* Then Again, Maybe I Won't
* The Pain and the Great One

;the the
Why the double "the the" in the Title text?{{unsigned ip|
Maybe it's supposed to be "thee"? {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.115}}
: Look out! It's an {{w|anacoluthon}}! [[User:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|ImVeryAngryItsNotButter]] ([[User talk:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|talk]]) 15:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
: Maybe it's a typo? ;) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.116|173.245.51.116]] 12:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
::Maybe it's supposed to be 'the The Great One' [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.122|108.162.219.122]] 14:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;Another take on a rarely-used joke

I've seen this threat/insult God line used before, but rarely, and never in this manner.

In one episode of the sitcom One Foot In The Grave, the grumpy old man protagonist is incapacitated. Upon waking up in hospital he finds a bearded patient in a white gown looking down upon him, and for a few seconds believes himself to be dead. He speaks three lines: 'Oh, it's you.' Then in a much angrier tone 'I've been waiting to see you for a very long time.' He then proceeds to grab the patient around the neck and attempt to throttle him while screaming in anger about every misfortune and annoyance in life.

One episode of The Outer Limits features a very old man who has spent his entire life fighting to survive - with such determination and success that he almost overturns the supernatural structure of nature, which should prohibit immortality. At episode's end he finally loses, having resorted to every trick fair and foul in his quest to live another day. In the final shot a mysterious force approaches to collect his soul - and the ghost of the man is seen, readying himself for a fight as he speaks the final line at the oncoming form: "I'm ready for you. I hope you're ready for me."

The final (non-revival) episode of Red Dwarf ends with Death himself coming to collect the supreme coward Rimmer, incarnate as the traditional black-robed figure with a scythe. Rimmer knees him in the groin mid-sentence and flees.

[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.185|141.101.98.185]] 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;hot
Margaret is kinda hot.
Is it normal to be sexually attracted to an xkcd character ? {{unsigned ip|173.245.49.29}}

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 14:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC) See also title text of comic [[1354: Heartbleed Explanation]]

;transformers
This is almost an exact quote from the end of transformers age of extinction... Optimus prime rhetorically asks his makers of they are scared, then follows with you should be because I'm coming for you {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.173}}

;stirring the pot
Ooh, ooh, let's say that the "second Megan" in [[1496: Art Project]] was this [[Margaret]] girl! I'm sure everyone can agree to that!!! [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 15:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
:No way. This [[Margaret]] has already been used once before as mentioned, and she has curly hair. The "other" Megan has straight hair like Megan!--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;Cut it out
Cut out the excessive use of topic headlines.
On point, the description correlating to an action movie trailer is hard to read, lacks focus, and includes a synopsis of the comic. The synopsis should not remain as that's what the transcript is for. Also, the part describing the book titles should say that it was likely inspiration for the Title Text, not the comic. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.154|173.245.48.154]] 17:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;Margaret Downy Reference?

Could it be a reference to Margaret Downey, former President of Atheist Alliance International? (Would explain the "or not" in the mouseover text and the wry rephrasing of a traditional prayer.)
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.165|108.162.237.165]] 18:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
:No, it is obviously to the character from the books--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;Margaret - throwaway name?
I've noticed quite a few similarities between Margaret and "Danish" - i.e. the thick hair, the sadistic attitude... They the same person, or was Margaret just a throwaway name used for the purposes of satirizing Blume's novels? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.22|141.101.99.22]] 17:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
:No way should this be Danish. This [[Margaret]] has already been used once before as mentioned, and she has curly hair. [[Danish]] has long but straight hair, like Megan but longer!--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;Judy Blume is a current topic
Judy Blume, author of "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret" just this month put out a new novel ("In The Unlikely Event"). I suppose a month's lead time is stretching a bit, but an episode of Commonwealth Forum from the 7th of this month just aired on KQED. It featured Judy Blume and Molly Ringwald talking about Judy's novels, new and otherwise. It seems slightly too coincidental to be coincidence, but that might just be me. Is this worth mentioning? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.56.179|162.158.56.179]] 03:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

;Batman v. Superman
So was I totally off thinking this may have had something to do with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice teaser trailer where graffiti "False God" on a statute of Superman. Batman stares at Superman, saying: "Tell me, do you bleed? You will." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.29|108.162.221.29]] 04:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1539: Planning

2015-06-18T14:56:17Z

108.162.221.103:

''One thousand likes to nuke... say, Malawi. Or Malibu.''

Wouldn't it be scarier if it all turned out to be according to someone's plan? Would it be better if things were? Do your politics jive with your answer?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.54|108.162.229.54]] 12:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think nuclear weapons of soviet union are in bad hands no matter if accounted for or not. The shortage of good hands in russia seems more acute than in US. I mean, even the US nuclear weapons are more scary than google, but if google would somehow get the soviet union nuclear weapons, I would consider it improvement. At least they would no longer need to censor the searches ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
:Seriously you've read too many creepypastas, seriously. [[User:Miguelinileugim|Miguelinileugim]] ([[User talk:Miguelinileugim|talk]])
::Well maybe it is a {{w|Creepypasta}} but it is not much better that Putin has them under control than some Bellasarus tyrant... etc. But do you really think that there was full control of all nuclear weapons in Russia and the other states after the breakdown of USSR? I do not... But fair enough to take it out of the explanation. It can be stated down here as personal opinions. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I read Megan's comment differently. The explanation seems to paint it as a ''"Why don't you care about this instead?"''. I read it as ''"People are stupid. Here's another example of people being stupid"'' [[User:Jdluk|Jdluk]] ([[User talk:Jdluk|talk]]) 13:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
:I fully agree, and nowhere does she say she finds it more disturbing. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.239.37|198.41.239.37]] 13:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
::I also agree now I have seen your comment, and have corrected my explanation accordingly --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with the ''second'' part of the explanation text: ''"this kind of big-picture planning actually doesn't exist ... This is of course a scary thought,..."'' As the first commenter mentioned, it would be scarier if there was such planning of the lack of care and handling for the consequences -- the arms race was planned, the consequences probably not so much. It's on auto-pilot, or otherwise said "it will be someone else's problem... later". <br>
However denuclearization has been a topic even since 1946 (see the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Plan Baruch Plan]). It's just that WMD are old news and media outlets will likely prefer to highlight the "threat" of Google and Facebook on people's lives. Draws more headlines and it's easier with a subject that common people can easily understand, as they read one-liner news feeds while tweeting about their latest cappuccino, pin their location in foursquare and then continue on reading on how much their activities can be followed. <br>
Not to mention as with some of Randall's strips, I have the feeling the comic is just a prelude for the title text punch line. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 16:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

;Explanation styles

Why are so many explanations lately just paraphrasing of the text in the comic -- it does not offer any explanation at all. The above explanation can be cut down to two lines. [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 17:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought the Title Text was one of those "bread, eggs, breaded eggs" jokes (would link to TVTropes if I knew how).[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.103|108.162.221.103]] 14:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)